Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Naraoia]

Well, there certainly could be observations that are inconsistent with a living universe. For instance, the absence of currents, or the absence of highly variable circuitry in space would be inconsistent the the idea that the universe is "alive" and "aware".

Fair enough. I'd say a "highly variable circuitry" (whatever that actually means) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inferring "awareness". I still maintain that awareness can only truly be tested through functional outcomes.

FYI, I'm perfectly happy accepting my 'faith' in God as a pure act of faith. I'm fine either way.

I'm fine with that too. From what I've seen, plasma cosmology is a perfectly testable idea, and I'll let you argue about scattering and whatnot with more physically educated folks. I just think that pantheism is an untestable addition to the theory.

That is in fact entirely possible. It's possible that the universe is electric but not alive.

[...]

I'll grant you that EU/PC theory comes in two flavors, atheistic and theistic brands. Either brand is entirely *empirical* (every attribute shows up in a lab)

https://www.google.com/search?q=lay...1f97d30028e145&bpcl=37189454&biw=1280&bih=761

Clicked your search results, but I'm not entirely sure what in them I should have read. I basically went for the links, which led me here and, ultimately, to this paper.

The first one is a cool image, but does it show anything other than a superficial similarity? Even if the similarity isn't superficial - if there is, say, some deep mathematical law that compels both neurons and galaxies to organise in a similar way, does that in itself have anything to do with awareness?

The second one: even though the Ars Technica article makes a throwaway remark about nerve cells, the paper itself does not include the words "nerve", "neuron", "brain" or axon. They did not analyse the structure from that perspective at all. So again: superficial similarity or something more?

I thought I'd discussed it in the Empirical theory of God threads, but apparently not.

You may well have, I think I got bored after a certain amount of mainstream-bashing and started skimming.

All I can do is compare the overall layout of current carrying material in the universe and verify that it's active and variable. There's prayer/meditation and human experience of course but that seems to be off the table in terms of evidence that atheists will accept.

In terms of evidence that scientists will accept, you mean. I think the vast majority of scientists regardless of religious affiliation will agree that subjective experiences and anecdotes do not constitute evidence in the scientific sense.

For the same reason that this shower curtain really is Lenin:

http://icbseverywhere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lenin_plait.jpg

Haha!

 

[Michael]

Fair enough. I'd say a "highly variable circuitry" (whatever that actually means) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inferring "awareness".

The highly variable circuitry is more of a method of falsification than a direct demonstration of awareness. Without such variability however, it's unlikely the universe would be alive. I'm just pointing out that there are actually a host of falsification mechanisms related to Pantheism, just like any other cosmology theory.

I still maintain that awareness can only truly be tested through functional outcomes.

I'm pretty sure we agree on that point, but 'testing' the idea gets to be tricky in a lab. We need some sophisticated hardware to measure external as well as internal EM fields. We also have a "subjectivity" aspect that comes into play anytime we introduce "humans" into an experiment. Even in a lab, with valid control mechanisms, it's tough to make empirical cause/effect connections.

I'm fine with that too. From what I've seen, plasma cosmology is a perfectly testable idea, and I'll let you argue about scattering and whatnot with more physically educated folks. I just think that pantheism is an untestable addition to the theory.

I don't see why or how it's untestable. For instance, a 'standard' (non aware) PC/EU theory would not necessarily "predict" large variations in current flows throughout the galaxy. In other words, they wouldn't need to take on any sort of 'random' appearance, they could be related to simple object movement, and such. We can also make valid "predictions" related to human experiences with Pantheism, that are not even possible with a more 'limited' PC/EU theory. It seems to me I'm only introducing one more variable into cosmology theory, which also exists on Earth. By doing so, I can make a whole host of new predictions that can also be "tested".

Clicked your search results, but I'm not entirely sure what in them I should have read. I basically went for the links, which led me here and, ultimately, to this paper.

The first one is a cool image, but does it show anything other than a superficial similarity?

They are both current carrying structures, not just "similar looking' structures. You'll also note that "filamentary shapes" are highly indicative of *ordinary plasmas* in the role of "dark matter" since that is exactly the shape that plasma takes in the presence of ordinary currents.

Even if the similarity isn't superficial - if there is, say, some deep mathematical law that compels both neurons and galaxies to organise in a similar way, does that in itself have anything to do with awareness?

Those are all really great questions. I wish I had confirmed answers for you, but I don't, at least not yet.

The second one: even though the Ars Technica article makes a throwaway remark about nerve cells, the paper itself does not include the words "nerve", "neuron", "brain" or axon. They did not analyse the structure from that perspective at all. So again: superficial similarity or something more?

In terms of the concentration of current, there are indeed *functional* similarities. Irving Langmuir even noted in his experiments that plasmas behaved like blood plasma in terms of providing 'double layers' that insulate one area from another and provide "cellular" type structures in plasmas. There are more than just "superficial" similarities, there are functional similarities.

In terms of evidence that scientists will accept, you mean. I think the vast majority of scientists regardless of religious affiliation will agree that subjective experiences and anecdotes do not constitute evidence in the scientific sense.

This particular attitude is going to create a problem as it relates to directly demonstrating "awareness". There are no known machines that are 'aware'. If we expect to measure or confirm any type of awareness in empirical experimentation, we're going to need to introduce humans (or other living organisms) into such experiments.

 

[Naraoia]

This particular attitude is going to create a problem as it relates to "awareness". There are no known machines that are 'aware'. If we expect to measure or confirm any type of awareness in empirical experimentation, we're going to need to introduce humans (or other living organisms) into such experiments.

I don't have anything particularly scathing () to say about the rest of your post, but I do have to comment on this. IMO the real problem is defining "awareness", not introducing humans. You have to introduce humans into any kind of experimentation - no matter how sophisticated the machinery gathering the data, humans are still designing the experiments and interpreting the results. I don't see how testing awareness is any different in this respect.

However, you can only begin to test for awareness when you've defined it in a way that makes distinct predictions about aware and non-aware objects. Do you have such a definition?

 

[Michael]

I don't have anything particularly scathing () to say about the rest of your post, but I do have to comment on this. IMO the real problem is defining "awareness", not introducing humans. You have to introduce humans into any kind of experimentation - no matter how sophisticated the machinery gathering the data, humans are still designing the experiments and interpreting the results. I don't see how testing awareness is any different in this respect.

However, you can only begin to test for awareness when you've defined it in a way that makes distinct predictions about aware and non-aware objects. Do you have such a definition?

I shouldn't have to 'make up' such a definition on my own should I? I didn't even invent the theory of Pantheism myself.

I could start to distinguish between living and non living processes. I would expect two obvious differences would be that I would "predict" that the layout and arrangement of matter in the universe isn't simply 'random'. Rather it should resemble the types of structures that I observe in living organisms. I would expect to observe highly variable current flows throughout the system as well. In terms of defining and describing the characteristics of a macroscopic living organism, the best I could do is look to nature. The kinds of things I find in microscopic living things, I may also find in the structures and functions of the cosmos.

Based upon the testimony of countless humans since the dawn of recorded civilization, I also have some hope of demonstrating an actual physical EM field interaction between humans and the larger universe during events like prayer and meditation.

These are some of the obvious ways of starting to "test" Pantheism that come to mind.

 

[Michael]

Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5v...&q=electrical discharges solar flares&f=false

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual stuff snipped...
Unlike Dungey, you are are not a solar physicist and he claimed that electrical discharges *are* possible and *do occur* in solar flares!

Unlike Dungey, you are are not a solar physicist, have no background in physics and continually display an inability to understand what Dungey wrote about magnetic reconnection causing solar flares.
Dungey claimed that magnetic reconnection caused solar flares and large current densities. He seems to be the only scientist in the history of the world to have called these large current densities 'electrical discharges'.

You're not a plasma physicist either, and your statement don't jive with Peratt's definition of a discharge in plasma either.

You not a plasma physicist either, and your statements don't jive with what Peratt actually wrote and what every scientist in the world has written:
11th October 2011: Peratt's definition of electrical discharge
This is ordinary electrical discharge - he gives the example of lightning and auroa.
11th January 2011: Do you know the difference between a title and a definition?
You seem to seem to have the misconception (to put it charotably) that the section is actually about electrical discharges plasma. But then:
5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?
And
7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?

Peratt is not the only scientist who has ever existed so:
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

That's a blatant lie. Dungey wrote about them in the 1950's as did Bruce.

Michael, your Dungey bit is a lie (see above).
Citing Bruce and his insanely wrong idea that there is actual lightning on the Sun is just way wrong!

Again, this is another blatant lie.

Again, this is another blatant inability to undestand what I wrote!
So a bit of shouting to make my point (sorry)
There are no references to actual as in lightning electrical discharges in plasma in any scientific paper.

It's never been "dropped" except by those who choose to live in pure denial of scientific fact.

You still have the idea that there are many papers and textbooks on electrical dicharges in plasma so:
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?

I see you are still unable to understand Negative pressure or the Casimir effect.

We still have 4th May 2010: The SDO image"green line" is a processing artifact as confirmed by the NASA team

I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. ...

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1843/sdoapodcolorcomp.jpg​

The green line is there because of the processing. In this image, which I sent along with my communication in order to get a definitive reply, you see arrow "A" pointing to the edge of the filter applied in the image processing software. The arrow "B" is pointing to what amounts to the actual limb of the Sun. The apparent roughness of that "B" edge is due to the emissions picked up by the three filters used to make the composite, all of which are coming from above the photosphere.

...Over a thousand posts exchanged. And the SDO science program at NASA says Michael is wrong.

(some flaming removed)
And then there is:
Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy? - the answer is yes. Michael saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored its absence in another.

And it *increases* with *increasing* distance!

And nothing in the paper states that anything *increases* with *increasing* distance!
Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
What the experiment shows is that if you have a plasma that has an electron density 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times that of the intergalactic medium then spectral lines redshift.

If you have the fantasy that this happens in the intergalactic medium then that is just another invalid tired light theory.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The term "you' was generic and refers to "haters" in general. You're more like one of the lynch mob.

Doubly wrong: I am not a hater. I am not a mamber of any lynch mob.
There seems to be a bit of conspiracy theory crackpottery there!
Michael, is everyone who disagrees with you or your pet theories a hater ?
Michael, is everyone who tells you about the physics that invalidates your pet theories a hater ?

That's a handwave from an unpublished work RC.
...snipped the usal rant about Ned Wrights web page containing basic physics...

That is a lie, Michael, so it looks like I will have to shout at you a but (sorry)
Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779

it is evident that any explanation based on a scattering process like the Compton effect or the Raman effect, etc., will be in a hopeless position regarding the good definition of the images

Cue RC's false information.

Cue a lie from you, Michael, the intergalactic medium is stated in many sources and I cited one: Plasma (physics)

1 m−3 (intergalactic medium) to
1030 m−3 (stellar core)

you go right back to pure denial!

And showing an inability to read, Michael!
What I went to is asking you to confirm whether all of these pc authors you mention solved Oblers paradox by using a Steady State theory.

Yes or no has Obler's paradox been "explained" in PC/EU tired light theories RC?

And once again - you have cited no sources for pc theories that solve Obler's paradox.
So the answer is: So far no.

 

[Michael]

Doubly wrong: I am not a hater.

Of course you are. You even came over to this forum so you could argue against a theory that you don't even understand because you've never taken the time to properly educate yourself on the topic of EU/PC theory.

I'm sure you *still* have never read a book on this topic.

I am not a mamber of any lynch mob.

Ya, you are. Your attitude is sort a cartoon characterization of everything that is wrong with astronomy today, and you're not even an astronomer. Have you read Alfven's book yet?

There seems to be a bit of conspiracy theory crackpottery there!
Michael, is everyone who disagrees with you or your pet theories a hater ?

Nah. There's only about a dozen EU/PC haters on the internet and you and are the worst of the worst. You don't even understand basic physics, not even the kinetic energy state of a photon.

Michael, is everyone who tells you about the physics that invalidates your pet theories a hater ?

Nope. Just the ones that make no effort to understand it, and who repeatedly make false claims about it.

That is a lie, Michael, so it looks like I will have to shout at you a but (sorry)
Zwicky, F. 1929. On the Red Shift of Spectral Lines through Interstellar Space. PNAS 15:773-779

That's from *1929* for goodness sake! Earth to RC, come in RC. It's 2012, not 1929! How about Chen's work, Stark redshift and everything we've learned about plasma physics in the past 80 years?

Cue a lie from you, Michael, the intergalactic medium is stated in many sources and I cited one: Plasma (physics)

Is that before or after they found that big ball of dense million degree plasma around the galaxy? Was Chen's plasma a million plus degrees RC?

What I went to is asking you to confirm whether all of these pc authors you mention solved Oblers paradox by using a Steady State theory.

If you studied the topic honestly and with intellectual integrity, you wouldn't need to ask me such stupid questions. When you do ask me, and I provide you with the right answers, the least you could do is acknowledge them. You never do. You never remove anything from your lists, and you never accept any answer you disagree with, regardless of where it comes from. Apparently you know more about solar physics than the Russians, Dungey, Giovanelli and the Japanese put together, all without ever once reading a single book on the topic of plasma physics as it applies to space.

And once again - you have cited no sources for pc theories that solve Obler's paradox.
So the answer is: So far no.

I provided you with three of them which you simply ignored, like always, just like you'll ignore every author I cited in the solar thread related to electrical discharges. Apparently retired IT guys know everything about every topic, even more than the 'experts' in the field.

 

[Michael]

Unlike Dungey, you are are not a solar physicist,

But I do agree with him on this topic whereas you do not.

have no background in physics

Pfft. At least I know that electrical discharges occur in plasma and photon have kinetic energy! I'm tired of the hijack and I'm just skipping your unrelated rants altogether.

And nothing in the paper states that anything *increases* with *increasing* distance!

It *must* increase with distance and with density. Give me a break! You're just making up nonsense claims as you think of them apparently. How hot was his plasma RC?

Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
What the experiment shows is that if you have a plasma that has an electron density 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times that of the intergalactic medium then spectral lines redshift.

What *cannot* be done with temperatures and distance *must* be done with density. Get over it! You're being absurd.

If you have the fantasy that this happens in the intergalactic medium then that is just another invalid tired light theory.

It's because you have the "fantasy" that it *does not* occur in the intergalactic medium that requires to make up more fantasies about mythical invisible sky entities in the first place! You're compounding fantasy upon fantasy all to avoid empirical physics.

Stop hijacking this thread. If it's not related to plasma redshift, it's not related to this thread!

 

[RealityCheck01]

And just to remind you, that this has been coveded before Micheal:
There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift
Add to this the point that if you guess that this happens in the intergalactic medium then you come up with just another invalid tired light theory.

Another small point: Effects induced by lasers and in dense plasmas tend to be nonlinear. Thus Ashmore

In fact the lines are redshifted with the degree of redshift increasing with the surrounding free electron density.
...
The lines are redshifted and the line shift increases with plasma free electron density – by ‘eye’ there is a linear relationship for all but one of the data points. The shift in the wavelength of the 435.83 line is approximately 1nm at an electron density of just over 1x1024m-3 rising to just over 2.5nm at an electron density of 3x1024m-3.

is correct over the small range of electron densities he quotes.

But it is foolish to try to extend this beyond those high electron densities.
(have a go Micheal and you will see something strange!)

 

[RealityCheck01]

But I do agree with him on this topic whereas you do not.

That is totally wrong: I agree with Dungey

Solar flares are caused by magnetic reconnection. MR also causes large current densities. Dungey seems to b ethe only person who has ever called these 'electrical discharges'.
​

Pfft. At least I know that electrical discharges occur in plasma

If you continue with stating things that are physically impossible in this thread I will continue pointing out that they are physically impossible in this thread:
Electrical discharges are impossible in plasma
If you want to continue this in the appropriate thread then go to that thread and cite the scientific literature that states that electrical discharges are possible in plasma.
N.B.

• Peratt never looks at electrical discharges are possible in plasma.
• Dungey never says that actual electrical discharges are possible in plasma. Dungey seems to be the only person who has ever called large current densities 'electrical discharges'.

It *must* increase with distance and with density.

If the redshift goes to zero at some electron denstty less than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 m-3 and more than 1 m-3 then
the redshift *must* remain at zero with distance and *must* remain at zero with with density.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Stop hijacking this thread. If it's not related to plasma redshift, it's not related to this thread!

Well that is a bit wrong, Michael .
If it is not related to the naming of the Dark Energy Camera then any post (including ones about the invalid plasma redshift ideas) not related to the naming of the Dark Energy Camera is hijacking this thread!

 

[Michael]

And just to remind you, that this has been coveded before Micheal:
There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift

Apparently when you make a proclamation, right or wrong, it's then "covered" in your mind. In the real world of physics, it doesn't work like that. It's not "covered" if you were never 'right' in the first place, and citing yourself isn't a 'scientific' way to engage in debate. You're supposed to site references *outside* of yourself. Get the concept?

Add to this the point that if you guess that this happens in the intergalactic medium then you come up with just another invalid tired light theory.

What!?!? You are the one that is actually "guessing" that dark energy does something to photons in space that it never does in the lab! You're the one building your entire case on an affirming the consequent fallacy: "Look at my math, my invisible friend did it!"

Another small point: Effects induced by lasers and in dense plasmas tend to be nonlinear.

Says who? Let me guess? You won't site a reference for that claim either?

But it is foolish to try to extend this beyond those high electron densities.

More blatantly false proclamations from a guy that claims photons have no kinetic energy.

 

[Michael]

Well that is a bit wrong, Michael .
If it is not related to the naming of the Dark Energy Camera then any post (including ones about the invalid plasma redshift ideas) not related to the naming of the Dark Energy Camera is hijacking this thread!

You know darn well what I'm talking about. This isn't the solar thread.

 

[Michael]

That is totally wrong: I agree with Dungey

So you agree with Dungey that electrical discharges occur in flares?

Yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck01]

So you agree with Dungey that electrical discharges occur in flares?

I agree with Dungey that the large current densities caused by MR that he called 'electrical discharges' occur in flares.
I would not use that obsolete term today because it would make me look ignorant about modern solar physics.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Apparently when you make a proclamation, right or wrong, it's then "covered" in your mind.

There is no "covered' in my mind. It is a fact that There is no evidence that Chen's plasma redshift is cosmological redshift.
There is your assertion. There is Ashmore's assertion.
Why should I believe a random person with a web page (Ashmore)?
Why should I believe someone who cannot address the strong evidence for dark matter and dark energy (or who does not even know the temperature of the Sun's photosphere !)?

To make your assertions into evidence you or Ashmore will have to show that the redshift in Chen's experiment

1. does not vanish at lighter densities.
2. can match the actual cosmological redshift.
3. can solve all of the problems with Tired light theories:

which are:

• They blur distant objects.
• The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves
• The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences.
• The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test
• Tired light cannot explain why no object older than ~15 Gyrs has ever been found.
• Galaxies at high redshift look different than today.
• The cosmic star formation rate changes as a function of time

Effects induced by lasers and in dense plasmas tend to be nonlinear: Effects dense plasmas nonlinear
And I better add - in my limited experience as a solid state physicist!

ETA: Michael: Where are the older than ~15 Gyrs objects in the pc universe?

 

[RealityCheck01]

You know darn well what I'm talking about. This isn't the solar thread.

I know darn well what you are talking about. This isn't the solar thread. That is why I asked you to answer elsewhere.

This is the why is the Dark Energy Camera called the Dark Energy Camera thread. The answer of course is that the camera will be used to get more evidence that dark energy exists (or not): Evidence for dark energy

 

[RealityCheck01]

You are the one that is actually "guessing" that dark energy does something to photons in space that it never does in the lab!

Missed this fallacy that only things that do things in the lab exist!


Planets do not do anything in the lab: Michael do planets exist?
Exo-planets do not do anything in the lab (most are not even seen in telescopes!): Michael do exo-planets exist?
Stars do not do anything in the lab: Michael do stars exist?
Galaxies do not do anything in the lab: Michael do galaxies exist?

There is no guessing that something is happening to photons in space. We measure that something is happening to them. FYI, Michael this something is called redshift - you may have heard of it before !

Or maybe not: Evidence for dark energy

 

[Michael]

I agree with Dungey that the large current densities caused by MR that he called 'electrical discharges' occur in flares.
I would not use that obsolete term today because it would make me look ignorant about modern solar physics.

Too late to worry about that RC.